decided upon by the administration. >> in particular from north korea. >> that includes both parts of missil defense approach that i just identified one as the amount and the phased adaptive approach and alaska both pieces do you approve both parts? >> i do. >> on the brac issue, as i understanding your testimony and your budget, mr. secretary, there is a short-term cost that there was an additional brac improvements, but that cost is not in the 2014 budget request. you put it in the 2015 budgeta

>> the money is in 2016, it is $2.4 million of additional funds. previous rounds you testified saved, i believe, $12 billion

annually. was that the savings that you say exist from the created from the last ground? from all the previous rounds. if you would like more detail maybe you could bring it out. i think you on the 75th barack you might remember you were in the the senate at the time in 2005. you might remember that i kind of lead the opposition of that round unsuccessfully. my senior senator was on the other side. yorm how you voted on that.

we'll get in to that. >> by support. >> okay. okay. >> yeah i came with the first it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially low size to meet what i thought was a unacceable size. that was one reason at that time. i think that reason is good today. the other reason is what the chairman touched on here. that is that there are is a -- there is a cost to brac. in two different areas. one is in the initial cost and the other is the recurring cost. now the government accounting office released a report last year, that is seven years after the '05 brac round noting that one time implementation cost throughfrom $21 billion

increase $14 billion or 67%. as a result of the 20-year value. we get to the recurring cost. the 20 year value dod expected tocheomthe200round. it decreased by 72%. in addition they determined that 75 out of the 182 recommendations about 41% are now expected to result in a negative 20-year value. that means it will cost more to implement than any projected savings over a twenty year period. that's pretty bad. that's -- and i've seen this. i know, there's ways of projecting figtures. those are the figure. it came from the gao office just last year, seven years after this. with that in mind, recognizing, as u as you point out, may fe tuntil 1

2015 than we are to believe today. have you considered that in your support of the brac? >> i have not seen the actual figures or the study you refer to, senator. i know. ly respond to your question. but i think from i don't know if it was the same gao report or another one, that note order the 2005 brac round in our facility. i'm going ask mr. hale to respond quickly. i know you read the report i

refer to. i ask you share that with secretary hagel, which i'm sure you'll want to look at. i would only ask you consider that because those reasons for my opposition to seven years ago, eight years ago now are probably more true today. when the chairman talked about the missile defense thing, i was very pleased when he made the decision to increase back up to 44. on the west coast. automatic the things happening in north korea. i was over there recently i talked to you from other there, and i realized that this is something that is -- we need tow protect against. i am satisfied. i may not be in the majority up here, i'm satisfied anything

coming from north korea or coming from that way, we need to capability to shoot -- i feel comfort we can knock down anything coming. where i probably disagree, jmp general dempsey is the capacity knock one down coming from the east. that's the reason we were building initially at theround base intercepter in oand. now we talk about a thiri se. ancaeseveral generare.ls we are not the most -- against an iranian threat. the intelligence told us since 2007 iran will have a capability of a weapon and delivery system by 2015. secretary hagel, do you degree

with threat from the east as oppose to the west? >> i don't disagree. it's something that the department of defense and all of those responsible for the missile defense capability and our strategies and the tactic it's a real issue. it's one we are dealing with. we have to deal with it. ii think it's like all of the issues. how do you deal with it? what are we doing? one way to deal with it is the third site i don't know -- if you have, would you let us know what that is? >> as you know, we were instructed through the national defense authorization act to conduct environmental impact statementings looking at possibility of putting a site on the east coast.

that investigation, that study is underway. of his year.ve a complete by the we'll obviously share that with the congress. >> oka thti i have, mr. secretary, the commitment made by the president in order to get the votes necessary for that, and i -- those commitments have not been met. and what i would like to get from you, for the record, there wouldn't be time now is will you support the product that the president talked about in order get the votes that he got for the new star treaty? in other words noting the capability. whatever the commitment the president made, i, of course, would support and carry forward my responsibilities in order comply with those commitments. >> thank you. >> and the treaty. >> thank you senator inhofe.

secretary hale, on the gao report, would youveany differences that you have, not now, but for the record with the gao report in addition to the request of senator inhofe. >> i will. may i say quickly we don't intend to repeat the 2005 round. it was different than 2015. >> if you can give us your criticism or disagreement with that report. >> okay. >> senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. secretary dempsey, secretary hale. the secretary mentioned the comments facing a lot of short constraints with sequestration, other issues but longer term there are issues the financial issues dealt with regardless of the -- the health care force. i know, you made some proposal in the budget in that regardus e

question to the general demp say. it would seem to me that in order to effectively carry out any reform, there has to be an ongoing dialogue with uniform active duty personnel and reserve personnel. uniform military you share the service of the sacrifice of the individuals more son than anyone else. is that dialogue going on? are there constructive ways organizationally to begin to save course? is there any sort of path forward that could be agreed on and given us an opportunity to deal with the sort of a solution that has . >> there has to be senator. we have to find a way forward.

we have reached out. we had on the more broadly on the issue of let's call it compensation reform. i would suggest we made much progress. i assure you we are working toward that. >> i think it's something you constantly have to do. and obviously a two-way process. listening as well as explaining. i think the other issue, too, that must concern you, at some point youcrodoutperations training, maintenance procurement, and for the active force training, good equipment, well motivated, well cooled leaders -- schooled leaders are more of a factor than other benefits. >> if i can just reinforce that

point. what he got at is training and readiness. there are plenty of weapons systems. adopting a new technique available. and that was a more efficient approach. i think those are the types of smart adjustments that might be more palatable and more acceptable and more acheeivel. frankly. >> just quickly. you niche rated that you indicated a strategic review indicating that secretaryand th.

it you update any insight you have at the point. and obvious question is that strategy going drive budget or i think the budget driving the strategy? >> as i noted in my statement, when you look through that obviously resources are critical to that. and when i initiated the strategic choices management review, it was yes influenced by the budget. the uncertainty of that budget.

but also more than that, the world is a different kind of world today as everyone in the committee know. you all travel. you go everywhere. we have new threats, we are have some of the same old threat. there is an alignment going on in global affairs that we haven't seen certainly since world war ii and maybe never seen it the way it is. the question i have to ask the secretary of defense is aree prepared, not just today, but are we going be prepared within the con straibt of budget reality? but bigger than that. how are we using our asset? are they smart. are we doing wise things? capable things. you mention personnel tricare, that has to be examined within and being examined within the framework of our examination of everything. you asked for a status, it is an ongoing. as i noted in my remarks, we

brought nerve to this not just to have a committee, but we have got to hear from the combat commander and the senior enlisted, we have to hear from the men and women who have the responsibility of implementing whatever policies we decide. and they're a part that have. we should have it in at least some initial report on this by the end of may. get reports on this weekly. i talked about it the end of every week. we talk about it on friday. as a result of hiss -- collaboration with general dempsey and what has been done that week. it's factoring in. that's a general broad brush stroke. if you would like to go deeper.

we're going to talk about syria after the hearing. i have one question about it. secretary hagel, general dempsey and your predecessor, secretary panetta, and secretary of state, clinn d genalper have ached an opinion onfavor that issue? >> i have not made a recommendation to the president that we should militarily intervene. >> i'm asking about providing weapons to the resistance. >> we are constantly reviewing every policy nd every option. i think we have . >> have you reached a conclusion yet? >> no. >> thank you. >> general dempsey, the north koreans persistent rumor the north creern are going launch a missile in the next days or weeks or coincide with certain events. do we have the capability to intercept a launch. >> we do. >> would you recommend if that

missile left north korea air space we intercept it? >> if it threatened any of our on>> shria tr any ofou whether it left north korea air space, it would be weather it viewed it as a threat. >> that would be my advice at this point, yes, sir. >> is think in doubt in your mind that over time the north koreans are on the path to having the combination of missile and weapon on it? >> no doubt at all. >> in the case of the iranians, the latest round of talks have obviously been unsuccessful. we hear reports about increased capabilities that the iranians have even announced. how serious do you think this is getting? >> i've said before, senator, as you know, i think the iranian threat is not limited to the

nuclear aspirations. i think the proliferating weapons of all kinds. they have surrogates and proxies all other the globe. i think they aspire to control the globe. >> secretary hagel, the defense budget for 2014, request is $52 billion over spending cap imposed bier the budget control act. right -- have you made any plans or going to share with congress the plans that you have to make if the budget control act and sequestration is not repealed? >> we are underway with those oppositions right now, senator. and one of the parts of the strategic choices and management review is part of that. e.ery day that's what we are thlity.>> itobe appropriate to share with congress the -- since

it can be only congress that repeals and signature from the president that repeals the budget control act? wouldn't it be appropriate for us to know what measures have to be taken in case existing law continues to prevail? >> we are -- yes, it is. we do. for example, i noted in my testimony we will be coming up to the congress a significant package of reprogramming request, which we have worked with the congress on. >> it's one thing to have reprogramming request. it's another thing to submit a budget, overall bijt that reflects the reality of the law as it is today rather than sending us a budget that has restoration of cuts that so far there's been no movement or action to rerepeal. i think we need to know what happens if we don't repeal. it's in your interest, in my view, to give us that information as to what would happen if we just simply comply

with existing law. >> well, i want to address both the points. one, we are continuing to do that, senator. and as part of marty's testimony, part of my testimony on what we are doing and explaining working with committees here in the house and the senate on we continue -- don't make the change what will be requested. for example, supplemental appropriation. is that something within the realm of what is going to be required? we don't know. we're trying to internally adjust. now second part of that is, i would add on the budget, i know in one of the points made here this morning on this. the senate and house budget resolutions for defense for 2014, essentially were the same basically the same numbers as our budget for deference. and the other part of this is not at all dismissing your questions that are real and legitimate on the reality of

this. but as you know as well as anyone this is a 6 of $600 billion comprise. it it was put together over a series of year. to try to readjust that and come back with new numbers in a budget was difficult as well. but make no mistake, senator. we are dealing with the reality of everything that you just ,alked about. but need to share those with congress and secretary. and i appreciate the fact you put together a budget that ignores the realities of the law today. it would be very helpful in adjusting for those realities if you share with congress what the budget would be if the existing law is implemented. >> we will. we will.. we are doing that now, as i said. >> in congress . >> i'm sorry. >> you will submit. >> we have been informing congress. >> the budget that reflects the $52 billion less than the budget that has been submitted by the

president. >> as i said in my statement. if there's no balance budget agreement, then that the law so you noted as i noted in my statement that we are going to be facing the reality of a 51 or $52 billion cut. anwe are praring for that. >> okay. i was saying you need to inform congress and work with congress so that we can also explain to our constituents the reality of what these -- what would happen if the budget control act were fully implemented. i don't think that's too -- . >> no, i agree. >> general dempsey, the kommendant said sequestration -- blng blank does it apply to all of our services? >> it applies to all of our services. sequestration in the mechanism would destroy readiness in a way i think we would not -- none of us would be pleased with. >> thank you. my time is expired. i thank the witnesses.

>> secretary hagel leme ar with senator mccain was driving in. if you let us know what you know what the impact would be of the $52 billion reduction in the budget, you have submitted it will help us, i believe, avoid that outcome. i think that's what senator mccain was pointing to. i would agree with that. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank secretary hagel and general dempsey for responding to concerns that we have expressed senator jill brand had a hearing on this and many of us have been working on this issue for a number of year at is making sure that the military is doing everything it can to catch the perpetrators of sexual assault and make sure the system is respecting the victim and not

arbitrary or capricious. i know it's unusual for the joint chief to come together with a recommendation to change the ucmj and the secretary of defense to endorse and embrace it in such a quick fashion as this occurred. i just want you to know how grateful all of us are working on the issue. we will continue to work with you as we codify some of the changes. hopefully in the this year. i appreciate you mentioning it in yu statement. i look forward to working working with both of yo t make sure we do everything we can to occurred and the fact surroundt the act and take the focus off the victim, and what she did or didn't do or what he did or didn't do. and get us to this century as it relates to the way the crime is being handled.

it won't surprise you i want to talk about contracting. i noticed that transcom recently put out a solicitation for air med vax, air lift in africa, and so my question to you is was there an analysis done as to why our current capability on med vac and all of the different commands that deal with, you know, i think you all just cancel the air force the 27j which is hard for me to figure if we contract with blackwater, which it appears from the solicitation you are looking for a 212 the only aircraft that was qualify under the solicitation. of course, that's the aircraft used by the new name for blackwater. and i'm, you know, i'm not

against contracting logistical support. i need to know what the analysis is why we can't do this and why this is cheaper. >> i don't know. >> no, i mean, i know our list is stretched. it's a stretched resource. in particular, as you know, most of what is coming out of afghanistan these days comes out by the second -- the threat environment in africa is different than other parts of the world. i'm shiewfer that was a factor. some of the aircraft you're referring to are actually -- we don't want them in the inventory. of their sustain ability and capability. so, i mean, i know the analysis was done. i'm sure that it followed the rules of competition by the federal acquisition regulation. i don't know the ci think the am looking for here is before we do contracting as a default

position on logistic, as we're, i mean, what i worry about in the sriing budget environment there's going to be more o tenden just sthat we should contract it out. because it's cheaper. and if afghanistan and iraq applaud anything that's not always true. and if you don't have adequate contracting oversight. it's not and especially when it's inherently a governmental function and we can spend a whole hearing tsh we -- we have many on that. i want to make sure it's a new day. as we begin to do new solicitation for new logistic support contract in any threat environment, there has to be a really detailed analysis done as to it is going to save you money. and why we can't do this within the existing command. i'll be anxious you to see the command that was done. you are probably aware, i'll spend some time on it. >> senator, we will provide that

for you. let me address just briefly here to your geral question and concern. you are right, that is part what we're doing in the review. you have been as -- as everyone engaged in the overall procurement acquisition issue. you have been helpful. that is an area that we need to do more, obviously some success the recent gao report came out reflected rather positively what we have been doing and will continue to stay at it for the reason you mentioned. and work with you on it. thank you. >> thank you. >> as we are drawing out of afghanistan, i think it is really time to measure the effect of large scale infrastructure as a part of counter incorkty. i continue to harp on this and i will keep harping on it until

you do the work. i need some kind of analysis as to how large scale infrastructure spending contributed to a successful fight in the area of counterinsurgency. and you have the ability because you have done small scale projects and large scale projects. i'm confident you can do the analysis to the impact what was intended for versus water system, electrical grid, highway systems, all of that that we have spend billind i and billions of american's dollars on. and i -- until we --if we don't do it now, it will be a tendency at the next conflict to say, okay, let's start building big stuff, and especially want the analysis do the overlay of the security environment and whether or not the small scare makes sense. so you to pay off less to the

security people and risk getting the money to the wrong hands versus the large scale payments we had to make many times to the bad guys. so if you would get back to me on that analysis and when it's planned or how it's planned nap would be helpful. .. can they maintain that? is this a wise investment? should we be doing small

projects? all appropriate. they are being analyzed and the ig reports come out almost monthly on every one of these. we are looking carefully at every one of them and you are exactly right. we will continue to work with you on it and get you the analysis that you req >> in isolation, the theory sounds absolutely sound but now we have the data and we can figure out actually works. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. senator sessions? >> congratulations, senator hagel. i look forward to working with you. i know you love the country and know a lot about working in the military. so we have some real opportunities in the years to come and some real challenges. one thing that you need to fully understand, the captain before you came was in august of 2011

this nation reached the debt ceiling and there was a national discussion about that. an agreement was reached and passed into law signd by e president of the united states and said we will reduce the growth in spending by the amount we e th debt ceiling 2.1 trillion. 1.1 trillion of that was a sequester if an agreement was not reached by this committee and the committee did not reach an agreement. there was no provision in that budget control act agreement to raise taxes. this year raising taxes $600 billion. but there was never an agreement as part of the sequester or the budget control act to raise taxes so that's where we have a lawyer at. this is the problem so in the debate and i remember sitting up

when the president guaranteed the american people that the sequester wouldn't hap but it is happening. it's happeningright now. it's infil all. the house has proposed a budget that eliminates the cuts on the defense department but finds other cuts in the government to replace them with. the president is saying he wants to eliminate the sequester. he apparently indicates that he does, that he wants to do that raising taxes and that is a nonstarter. under the current debt path we are increasing spending every year. the difficulty as i pointed out before our committee so many times is half of the reductions in spending and in the sequester follow in defe which lyup onixt entour rn

so that is a disproportionate cut. as you talk to congress about the difficulties, i suggest that you go to 1600 pennsylvania avenue and talk to the president, the commander in chief. because i don't -- i am very worried pity i am very worried because congress isn't going to raise taxes to fund this request , and it's deeply disappointing the defense department has delayed telling us what those cuts might be. senator mccain raised a long time ago. i talked about it. we passed a legislation requiring you to lay out a spending plan if the sequester were not fixed. it's a big deal. i just want to tell you you are in a tough spot, but i really do believe that the way to handle

this is to look for other reductions in spending. big agencies like medicaid and food stamps and other programs have gotten no reductions in spending at all, zero so there is an opportunity to spend some of these reductions around and not have this burden fall on the defense department. so i've just got to tell you i'm worried. i don't see any easy solution right now. hopefully something will happen that you need to be prepared for the worst. i have random on the strategic committee in the nuclear defense forces i just will share some concerns with you about the commitment we have as a nation and this administration does to the nuclear arsenal, the nuclear infrastructure, the nuclear modernization that we said we are committed to come and its

understanding for our nuclear forces as they serve as the ultimate guarantor of the security of our country and the assurance that it provides our allies and partners. these are big issues right now. president dhaka identified nuclear proliferation of the danger to the united states and its allies and it is a danger. yet the response that we have seen from this threat of proliferio has been self-defeating i'm afraid. the president had hoped to set up an example for others to follow by emphasizing the nuclear arms reductions with russia over nuclear deterrence on that striking out balance. but the provision and the president's policies are underlined by the inability of the international community's inability to keep the regimes such as north korea and iran from developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles also. so this will cause a

proliferation but people that are threatened by it may feel compelled to develop nuclear weapons. seary aed in an attempt tonse reassure our asi e face of the north koreamissi reats said on a ploy we will continue to provide the extended deterrence offered by the u.s. nuclear umbrella. but the president in march and south korea, march of 2012, march of last year, said as president i changed our nuclear posture to reduce the number and the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy. i made it clear the united states will not develop nuclear warheads and we will not pursue the nuclear military missions for the weapons. we have narrowed the range of

contingencies under which we would ever use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. so there is no wonder i think our allies are getting nervous here and it has a danger of proliferation and a danger of instability. we don't like to talk about nuclear weapons. this is a grim subject indeed but i want to raise these issues noting the administration has added 4.1 billion to the five-year plan with weapon 12 proposed 14 assuming the sequester would occur would have a 1.34% of 34% short of what the promise increases were.

how the clause ballistics of submarine and the proven missile of both on schedule is yet to be made about the fallout for the icbm. the be 61 bomb was two years behind schedule as was the plant life extension for the w 78 nuclear warhead. i think this is a dangerous trend that we have to reverse and stop. the world needs to hear from you as a commitment to maintain theg u.s. nuclear forces and the nuclear weapons complex as i understand and the president has agreed to and i understand you support the agreement.

would you repeat that here today? i think it would be important for the allies and adversaries general dempsey and no clear arsenal and pursue the modernization efforts president obama commander in chief is committed to the spending plans help get these capabilities contract o lre further delays. >> to include extended deterrence and our capability and to maintain a safe and secure and reliable stockpile. i said that in my confirmation here.

>> it's good to see you. there is talk around a result of us passing the defense appropriation for the rest of the fiscal year. there is now talk that you can reduce the furlough days for the defense civilians from 14 to seven is that true? >> they send out notification to the congress to comply with the law that we were considering furloughing the take on it was maybe as much as 21 days we are going to be required we have now got that down to 20 or 14. we are still reviewing what

actions we may have to take. we are probably a couple of weeks away from coing ta determination on whatt furlough would be and the congress of course will be fully informed, kept informed on any decisions we need to make to comply with the budget restraints. with that let me ask the comptroller if he has anything. >> we haven't made a decision beyond up to 14 days. >> if it stays at 14, that would start to go into effect at what time? 14 or seven, when what it going to affect? >> we haven't made specific timing decisions but it would probably be a 14 day level. i want to preserve the secretaries options.

>> presidentzahasaid that we e in cahoots the taliban why would he say such a thing? >> i was welcomed with that comment as i was arriving in afghanistan. we have an opportunity to expand on that privately, and he has since readjusted his thinking of what he said publicly after my visit. i didn't go into a great debt of what led him to that conclusion. but i think he said something to the attack is.

it's important that we stay in touch with the leaders. we have a conversation in particular about the bilateral security area -- agreement and i want to get a handle at the detention center which i know the general was here yesterday. you know that that area of the world and its leaders are under a lot of pressure all the time, and i think we need to stay engaged wisely refully and reach out and make it very clear what our guidelines are and we have a big challenge ahead of last which has already been noted this morning and will get into more detail this afternoon.

the only way that we can responsibly transition out is to work with the leaders but i guess president karzai would be able to answer that question. >> are the leaders over their beginning to accept the fact we are not going to remain as an occupying force? >> i think so, senator. it's pretty clear as we are consolidating the basis and handing over responsibilities general dempsey noted in the testimony this morning with the afghan army has taken responsibility for, what the police force says. there is good news, it is in ihwe hav to realize this is the first time we have ever seen any kind of a government

with national unity of the force and all that goes with it. it is clear the leadership and the people that were not there to occupy. >> mr. chairman, i have some questions on syria. afn seooion?til the >> that'anut you have 100 -- one minute and 35 seconds >> i can yield back the same amount of time senator sessions. [laughter] >> i think i'm going to stay out of this conversation. i would like to get on the table if you want to discuss it later this afternoon that will be fine if we are faced with having to go in and secure the chemical

weapons and syria it has been bandied about that that would take 75,000 troops boots on the ground, american troops in syria. is that an accurate assessment? >> i'm going to defer that question to general dempsey because we are looking at all options for all contingencies but let me ask general dempsey. >> in the time remaining if we could follow this afternoon, we look at kind of alternative futures. the answer to your question is whether we are answering a hospital environment come on permission environment or environment of collaboration and we know how that number changes based on the environment. but it is a resource intensive test to sure.

>> senator wicker? >> thank you very much. first, mr. secretary, welcome back from your travels. let me quote from the stars and stripes the table 16th -- dated april 16th regarding the sharing of medical records. it's tough for the legislators, chuck hagel said that he would decide on the plan within 30 days to work towards the tangled process to share medical records between the dod and the va. mr. secretary, it goes on to say that you are doing this at the urging that the members of the veterans affairs committee. they asked you to have the capabilities by december 31st. it mentions that secretary leon panetta, your predecessor had instead taken another approach of file sharing rather than

building a single integrated system from scratch. he said he couldn't defend the past performance on record sharing. he said he stopped for their spending on the process and has restructured the program oversight. you know, i was in the other body before i came here. i've been here five years and that was on the veteran -- the subcommittee appropriations subcommittee dealing with veterans from some time over there mr. secretary. we didn't even have ipad and this has been developed in four short years. it seems to me that the fact that we have been talking in 2013 about file sharing only come in and not thinking big about a new system that our most talented people in america could certainly do to just start over

and have a system that starts within the dod and moves seamlessly when you move to the system is something we ought to go to so tell us what we can expect in 30 days and elaborate if you will on your plans there. >> well i think, senator, you have said it. why can't we expect exactly what you just said we should expect? below that to our veerans. i also said in my response yesterday that there's been a lot of positive things done, too. there's been a lot of good things bit and there's been a lot of progress. where the president committed us to be in 2009 and members of congress expect us to be. with that said, there is no point going back blaming anybody for anything. it is where we are. how do we fix it?

that is the only thing that matters. when i came in -- i am no expert on this but i have some background on 30 years ago i was the deputy administrator in '81 and '82 and i had the ability t. i don't take credit for that happening, but i pushed that pretty hard and in some ways we are still in kind of a state of limbo in accomplishing what needs to be done you use the ipad example was why can't we do this? who is in charge? who is accountable? how does it happen? hearing the policy strategy that neededoeit implanted?

as far as i can understand what is it that we can do that is helpful to the va and what is our obligation because we invent the veteran. the person starts with us and the seamless network, the interoperability that you refer to is where we need to be >> have you had a chance to sit down with secretary shinseki about this? >> in the second week i was in the job we talked a number of times on the phone and once a week. we were very closely connected. it's a tough assignment he has been absolutely committed as my predecessors have been united secretary panetta's involvement in this and to have the agencies cooperating and working together.

>> what can we expect to receive from you after the 38 pod? >> i am assessing it now and what we will do is a restructure the accountability chain as to how we are going to move forward >> it's something you can get back to by the end of may. >> of course in the committees. >> will that be by the end of may? >> my goal is to put something in structure at the end of 30 days. >> general dempsey, i was visiting with some pentagon people earlier this week. a 9% sequestration cut when he crammed into have a s out to be 18%. the number of training authorities that we were able to have in the air force for

amhe8% of those cannot be done. understanding t o t is futile to other costs there. the statement was also made to a small groups if we had more time because of sore the cuts in a more logical way. it just makes me wonder did we take the wrong approach to measuring the public and assuring ourselves the sequestration wasn't going to happen? this was unimaginable. it seems in retrospect and i'm speaking about myself also we should have known that the collapse of the super kennedy that sequestration was felt yp. if wd sense 2011 the

realization this was a fact that was going to happen in 2013 we would be in a better position, would we not, general? >> if you are asking me did we take the long approach, yes. i think this strategic management review allows us to understand the impact and articulate to the congress of the united states with the effect of the sequestration would be. but please remember, too we are still trying to figure out how to observe the 487 billion of the budget control act so this is not a the deepest budget cut in the history. it's the steepest tomorrow. >> thank you. in terms of senator wicker's request we hear from you by the end of may can you give a status report by the end of may even if you haven't made that decision let us know where you are and include in that report the

response of the department to the wounded warrior is legislation that we pass. the internet interpol portability let us know what became of that and how interoperable systems or as part of your response to the request and give us again that status report even if you haven't completed your decision. >> i well. >> senator udall. >> good morning cut gentleman to get it's great to avyou here, particularly wt to extend a welcome to you and your apar for the committee. on the budget especially given the threats and the capabilities that we have seen developing over these last few years and ou asill hopefully allow us to stay ahead of all of this. can you give the committee a sense of what the $800 million

in the budget will buy, what enhancements will be a result of that investment that we didn't have before on the same subject given the current level of maturity is it now the appropriate time to elevate the u.s. labor command to the level of a separate unified command. >> what we are doing hwithe 800 million. we are organizing ourselv currently we have to devotees of the national vel and i know you know this, senator. as narrowly defined as the name so we are defending ourselves that we have set frequently we have capabilities that could be extended for the nation should that become. so we have the teams formed at the national level. we are also trying to export the capability if you will to the combatant commanders. so for infusion centers,

operation centers if you will so that they have the capability to conduct reconnaissance of threatening networks external to the united states of course. and then defensive teams if it is under attack can block and if necessary have the capability to perform offensive cyber as well. so, what we are doing is protecting ourselves. but you are interested of course in the nation and i think the next step in net journey will require some legislation to augment what the president provided in his executive order. ..

you know the important role he has the work in translated and transferred to the civilian sector. many experts say we should do in the cannot of defense. i understand in the price of fuel that the services will pay, this conventional fuel, is going to rise to $4.70 per gallon on may 1st which is an increase

of 21% over current prices. the bottom line oilrice keeps going up. volatility makes it impossible. what kind of investment will the dod need to make to prevent our fuel bill from cutting further to our critical programs? >> well, you know the numbers on this, senator, how much money we spend annually, and . >> trying to figure out. . >> one of the largest consumers in the world is dod. so it is an issue. it is not just, as you know, a budget issue. it's a security issue. reliability of our sources as we have a fleet. we have an office in the department of defense that focuses on this. te have programs within the lo on -- options and programs. it is a priority.

it has to be a priority within the balance of all the things we're doing. the research and development wing of defense has been remarkably productive element for defense and the country. so yes, it's a priority. it will continue to be a priority. >> thank you, i look forward to working with you in that regard. i want to pay tribute to the navy who has been on the cutting edge of this. if i might, let me reference the effet utsill have ond bout he the training and readiness of troops rotating in afghanistan. general told u.s. last month reducing training dollars could cohearse the dollars in preventing units that aren't

prepared to go to harm's way. do you have the same concerns. it congress' inability to comprise putting our troop's safety at risk? i direct that to so you and general dempsey. >> i'll respond briefly and jmp dempsey will want to respond. first, readiness has to be our number one priority. i cannot certify nor can chiefs to have our young men and women go to war if they are unprepared. i won't do that. chairman dempsey won't do it. it has to remain a priority. are we concerned with the cuts and what is happening? yes. as you heard this morning. reworking around that in ere way

we correct not to effect that. at some point we'll see it cut deeply. i think as the chairman noted, and general dun ford noted and the chief noted. with that let me ask general dempsey. . >> i am deeply concerned. we're consuming readiness. we are using it. we are not producing it. we are stuck in that position. we have to find $23 billion in readiness funding the rest of the year. we are consuming it. we are not producing it. that's a dangerous path. >> i would note we have another opportunity as a congress in the early middle part of the summer to deal with this. it's my desire to do so. i'm going to be focused on this in every way i possibly can. as sergeant hagel would not send our troops to combat without being properly prepared. thank you. >> thank you senator udall. senator ayotte. >> i'm going to defer my

questioning to senator fisher and go after her. >> senator fisher. >> thank you mr. chairman, and ranking member. thank you mr. secretary for being hereoay, general dempsey, mr. hale i appreciate it i would like to follow up on senator's session about the commitment to the triad and you all agree that you have firm commitment to the triad, is that correct? >> yes. >> general dempsey, you as well. it. >> yes, senator. >> do either of you see any reason to abandon that commitment in the foreseeable future? >> no, i don't see a reason to abandon it. >> nor do i. >> thank you. i ask this because as secretary hagel last week -- you were speaking and testifying before the house armed service committee and you discussed your officer's ask for funds to perform environmental impact statement related to the icbm

missile weighing. what ish eis examining? as you know, senator, in the national defense we were expected to exam possible ground base location on the east coast to supplement the two we have on the west coast. we are conducting environmental impact statements to exam those at the direction of the national defense authorization act. >> are you looking at any partial shutdown at all? mr. hail, did you have a comment you would like to put? >> i think you're referring to the three missile -- is that correct. >> yes. >> there i think we're looking at ways to accommodate the new g at al options, but asand the secretary said, no decisions have been made.

>> it's my understanding that leadership in the military consistently say that we need to make sure that we have a strong triad, and that we need our icbm. why is -- why would we be conducting any kind of study looking at possible shut downs? >> as mr. hale said, senator. we have to get to new start level. we have to look at the triad. and the two places that are likely to the adjusted are either submarine laa littlist missiles. so the ei is ooking at the impact of that. we already on a path where we have to achieve new start level by, i think, 2017. >> it would include keeping some of the silo warm. >> it could, senator. we haven't -- that's participately the purpose of the eis as well as the nuclear

posture review we have been conducting for some time. >> are you looking at any other missions with regard to eis? besides . >> meaning some other use for the silos. >> yes. we are looking at the entire spectrum of possibility. the problem with keeping it warm, causes concern in our compliance with new start. we have to work through all that have. we are looking at the entire spectrum of responsibility. >> does it include shutingtown any the missile wings completely? >> decision to be determined, but generally speaking at ti we don't believe so. >> with a is the cost of the evaluation? do you have any idea on that? >> i'm going have to give that the record. i'm sorry, i don't have it in my head. >> that would be good. >> senator hagel, in your prepared statement, you speak about the curse of human despair and poverty along with

environmental degradation at key threat confronting our military. i guess i wasn't aware that our military was ever formed to look at those items. why did you put that in your statement? especially in light of the budgetary coer that we now have? >>ll, that wasicludin a li issues that our military does have to face around the world as we go in to other countries to protect our interests. what produces terrorists? what produces instability? what produces uncertainty around the world? that rolls right back on responsibility and obligation of the department of defense to protect our interest around the world. when you have got unstable areas that partly are as a result of

poverty, degradation in any way, adds to the complication of the environment of terrorism challenge problem. it wasn't just one issue i knw.ed an entirevas >> how would you try to balance that, though with the needs of our men and women who are in the service, and their need for training for resources to make sure that we don't send out a hollow force. they have all the resources that they require to accomplish their mission? >> senator, that inventory of issues was, as you note from my testimony, an inventory of issues of the global environment that we face today. i mentioned global terrorism. so it had nothing to do with directly making a choice.

my point was when you look at all of those challenges we need to prepare our military. for example in iraq and afghanistan. young army and marine captains were doing many things on the grnd. they were eng their men and women in to combat, they were dealing with triable leader, they were dealing with the different systems within the village. they were dealing with social issues. so it all does have an intersection as to how we train and prepare all of our people. >> and with the sequester, and the limits we're going have on the department's budget, are we going to be able to continue to train our military so that they can address that very wide range of issues that you listed? >> we're going to have to continue our train our military to be prepared to deal with every eventuality. every option. and that's how weprepare o

military. that's how we prepare any institutions leaders. >> as you look ahead to that $52 billion in cuts, that are not a part of the budget you presented but yet required under the sequester, do you have any at this point at this hearing on what you would suggest that we are able to cut and still maintain a fighting force that is well prepared in. >> well, i would refer you back to a comment i made in my statement, and general dempsey noted in my response to senator mccain on this question. that's one reason. not the only but an important reason why i directed these strategic choices and management review to prepare all of us. the pentagon, all of the our sources the deal with $52 billion that may be coming.

it's reality. it's law. it may get worse. it may be another $500 billion over nine years. so within that review, senator, we will have to come up with ways to dream with this -- deal with this reality and current law. >> and within your review, would you also list what you deem as priorities that cannot be reduced? well, that's the whole point of it. as a ma as i noe this year t has toegin with resources is our main resi?nsibility we he -- i have as secretarofta is the seof ths country. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator heying. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general demp. dempsey and secretary hale, thank you for your service. secretary hagel, welcome back to this committee. and secretary hagel, i wanted to

ask you questions about the furlough. the navy is reporting that with a recent passage of defense appropriations bills it has the financial resources to avoid furloughing the 200 navy and marine corps. civilian including thousand from my home state of north carolina. recently a pentagon spokesman state that the current plan is to implement civilian furlough with rough consistency across the department so i remain committed to replacing sequestration the balance long-term approach that can give certainty not only to the department of defense but the department to businesses and obviously men and women serving our nation. and until this problem is fixed, i'm concerned about unnecessary furlough. vis urloughing civilianrt term employee they would be outweighed by the long-term drop in readiness.

for example, the laying maintenance like that performed at frc east at cherry point, would likely result in additional cost when the backlog would be eventually addressed. so secretary hagel, do you plan on furloughing civilian workers even it is not financially necessary? and how does the department plan on approaching furlough? >> thank yo. first, you know that when we notify congress appropriate to the law, considering furlough that we have done. at this time we were looking at possibility of 21-day furlough. we since announced, as we tried to bring it con and manage it, that we think we are at 14. we also said if we have to do it it could be less. to answer your question, we are examining all of this very, very

carefully for the reasons you mentioned. that wouldn't be one of the last options that we would want to take. the reason you mention and more. we believe within two to three weeks we'll have an answer to this. there could be some better news, there could not be better news. but we are dealing with a balance here of where do you get the cuts? in order to, as you said, you discuss this morning maintain readiness and dot things that we have the highest responsibility for. what our highest priorities. that's not to say our civilon work force is not a high priority. not at all. i think general dempsey talk about the cost of getting back and you just mentioned some of the maintenance ises we're well aware of that. there are no good choices, senator, at all. we will not take any action on

furlough unless in our collective judgment there is no other way to get at order to comply with the law and >>hank you. i would like you to be sure look what the navy said in response. it has the financial resources to avoid those furloughs. >> i'm unaware of this. let me respond. we've tried to come at it a in a fair way across the board. some services are in better shape than others. i don't think that's necessarily -- i'll ask the chairman, meaning one service is better managed than the other. the army has taken the brunt in afghanistan. >> right. >> they had to chew up so much of their budget. that's the way it is. i do believe, i said it when i first went over there six weeks ago on this issue and everything, we're going in to this together.'rgotin of it together. i think that's the wise, smart,

and fair way to do tis. some services are on higher ground with the budget than others. that's recognizing what you just said. >> i would also add mat rein are taking the brunt too. >> that's true. i can't approve upon that, mrs. secretary. it's an issue of dealing with this as a department not as individual services. >> general dempsey, let me move to the cyberthreat issue. we were just talking about that too. we all know that china, on a huge scale, is routinely hacking in to u.s. government information networks collectic intelligence and stealing technology. the same is true for our u.s. businesses and academia. there have been numerous press report of chinese cyber operation breaking to industrial control systems specific stories indicate that chinese actress penetrated the control system of

a string of gas pipeline company to an extend they could have freely manipulated that. i'm interested to know the extend of china's cyber capability that could have a more direct impact on our security, if we were to find ourself in a crisis in the future. and although conflicts between the u.s. and china is a very, very remote proposal, can you address the china's cyber capability? if it would allow it to effectively attack our critical if it is excelled to o so. like wise, yount on whether you think china would be to be impair or ability to mobilize, deploy, and sustain military forces in the pacific from a cyberattack on infrastructure. that dod obviously depend on to move and supply our troops. >> in the time of -- let me -- if i could, senator, suggest we

have a longer conversation about this. but, you know, i'm concerned about state and demonstrate actors, and individuals. operating in cyber. it's an ungoverned space. there are plenty of actors taking advantage of it. we are vulnerable to it. we will continue to be vulnerable to it until we reach agreements on internal to our country and lationally. i'm going to china in particular, in the next week or so. you may have seen that secretary kerry, when he was there, gained agreement with them to work -- to have a cyber working group. i think that will be a positive step forward. i'm concerned about the vulnerability in cyber in general. not necessarily pinned to any particular country or group. >> whenever i talk about cyber. i always want to talk about the fact wne concentrate on education in our k through 12 and university

system. i think we need to have a much larger focus and investment in sign, technology, engineering and matt. not only does our military need individuals well trained in that field, we are competing with industry right now and so many other factors. these are the jobs that will continue propelling the u.s. as a global superpower. i want regurgitate the intense need. >> i think duke university will be particularly well pledged to lead that effort. >> i think duke. >> i agree. >> many of the north carolina institutions. >> thank you senator hagueen. >> mr. chairman, because of scheduling concerns i'm going to conifer to senator ayotte. >> if you are here at the moment. you will be the next republican and then senator lee would be after you. now senator ayotte.

he yielded to -- hed on regarto furlough. i had an opportunity to meet with he's going to be testifying before the readiness committee on the navy readiness posture. he informed me that the navy in look at their resources and budget have come up with a proposal that could end all the furlough for the navy and the marine corps. including, of course, think about our shipyards and the important maintenance work done there, particularly at the port m ableshpyard. one of the reasons he gave me made a lot of sense to me having

been to the shipyard and talked to certainly the commander there and the workers that once we get behind on a maintenance schedule, then the entire maintenance our navel fleet and the bmarine fleet gets behind. so what i was told by admiral rguson, if the proposal to end the furlough, he believes would also be cost efficient because of the maintenance schedule issue that will get us behind if we have to furlough the workers at the shipyard in sports mouth and other shipyard the other public shipyards in the country. i want to follow up just to add to senator heyingen said. it's my hope given the navy said they are able to do this. we will follow through because i understand the difficulty and appreciate, i thank you for serving in challenging times on sequestration, but if we can obviously in areas that are very

important such as the maintenance of our submarine and s not get behind schedule and keep the workers workers. i think it's important. i don't know if you have a further comment on that. i'm hoping given that they come have you will decide to implement it. >> senator, the chairman of the joint chief it won't surprise you to know. my recommendation, and it's that what it is, to the secretary we deal with the problem as a department not as individual services. and i know, for example, that the army has real problems in trying to reset equipment that has been beaten to death in afghanistan. so every service has their own particular challenge, but i really, my recommendation is we have to deal with it as a department. i appreciate that. analso i would hope that as you look a you think about the extend we can mitigate

additional cost we'll see in the long team, for example, the maintenance schedule or with the reset of equipment, certainly i know you look at the issues. i know, you're in a tough position. but i -- i was encouraged to hear that by admiral ferguson the other day and appreciate the decision that you will make and thank you for tyking -- take those priority toy a consideration. >> just to reassure you, senator, as i noted senator hagueen, spends every day of his life and staff dealing with this this is a difficult part of this as we deal with. i know, in the testimony. you right on every count on maintenance and cost and longer term cost. all of those factors are part of it. we will only take action if there's really we feel -- there's no other way to get around it. it would also say without

getting too deep in to this. if we have to move in that direction of furlough, there are exceptions as well. to those who would be exempt with certain jobs and we would have to factor some of your conversation about in that as well. >> good. that makes sense. you try prioritize given the challenges. i appreciate that, mr. secretary. i also wanted to ask you if you said in your prepared statement that our next goal is audit ready budget statement by the end of 2014. secretary hale will appreciate this. i asked him about this on many instances. but what i really want to ask you is will you meet the law and produce the budgetary statement of audit ready budget stair statement by the end of 2014. it's the law. >> i know it's the law. we're all aware that it's the law. we are committed to do that.

an to comply with the law. whether it was a law or not. >> thank you. i appreciate that very much. i want to ask about the north korea situation and in particular interaction if you had ay interaction with your unterdan mr. secretary, fromchina and one of the know that the administration shares, is that north korea's very dependent upon china for the economic viability including fuel trading and in my slew, china could end some of the deeply troubling and bellicose behavior we are seeing from the leader of north korea, i know additional defense asset in the area because we are concerned about the north korea. if i can get a comment from secretary hagel or general

dempsey about the chinese and what interactions we've had and how we can encourage them to tell north korea to knock it off? >> thank you. i will begin then i know general dempsey will say something. he noted he will talk about the leader for china in a couple of dais. i have spoken to my chinese counter part about this. we spent some time on this issue. he is well aware of the seriousness for them too. the common interest. as you know, secretary kerry was just recently there. i talked to secretary kerry sunday night. he was in tokyo, he called me and we had a a long conversation about it. i'll see him today. we'll have a further conversation about it. both of us focused on the same issue. we ed more help for china here

from the reasons you mentioned. so let me leave it there before i ask general dempsey to respond. you're right. we're doing everything question within our frame work here to encourage the chinese to do more. and i think that we are seeing some response to that issue is not over. we know that. i think it's moving in the right direction with the chinese. i'll add, senator, you can be sure that's going to be on the top of the agenda when i'm in china. i'll be happy to give you a call when i come back. >> i'm sure you'll come up with a more polite way to say knock it off. >> i wrote it down. >> i appreciate it. >> thank you for being here and your leadership. >> i think it might be helpful if you get a translation of

knock it off, that kind of directness, i think reflects feeling of every member of this committee. probably every member of the senate they have a ability china capability and responsibility to the region and the world and to take the action they're able to take to tell north korea cng eqt support of north ore is pendentpon north korea, to quote, knocking it off. it's translated to chinese or mandrin or otherwise. >> thank you, senator. i think there's an opportunity to have the conversation in a new way. senator kerry and their leaders, their leadership agreed on the discussion of new power tivep great responsibility. on that basis we'll have a good conversation. >> thank you, senator ayotte for

your plain english. we appreciate that. senator jill will gillibrand. >> thank you for your testimony and service. i'm grateful. i would like tow continue the line on north korea for a y we have extradinary unpredictae d highly threatened behavior. and we need china to step off to play a leadership to apply the kind of serious pressure that it will take to have north korea refrain from the language and threats they're making. how confident are you that we will be able to convince china to play this role. and if they choose not to, what recommendations will you make? >> as i said in my parting

comments regarding this issue. i think we are seeing some movement in the right direction in our relationship with north korea. i stath a fact that te reality is's it a problem for th. and every nation responds in the self-interest which is predictable. but we clearly have a common interest here, and i agree with the chairman's comment he just made. we may have opportunity here and way we're approaching it, i think, is a right way to approach it. as to what happens if things don't turn out right, i think we will have to deal with that at an appropriate time. but i have some confidence that this is moving in a right

direction. it's always a balance of projecting force, which i think we have done wisely and carefully. diplomacy, economics are involved in this. think also we realize that they have a new set of leaders in china. so they are going carefully navigate this as they should. i think we are seeing that kind of careful and responsible leadership through this. we need to do more. i believe china needs to do more. keel keep working -- we'll keep working on. >> my concern is that, you know, we have a lot of assets now move to the region in response to the threat in order to be prudent. and, you know, part of our mill exercise in the region may well

exacerbate the type of response that we have gotten from north korea. do you imagine that if we can engage china appropriately, and obviously china has every interest in the world to engage on this appropriately, do you think it would change our long-term strategy for how we respond in the region? >> we have interests and we'll continue to have interest in the asia-pacific. we have had and that's obviously part of what was behind the president's decision to rebalance in our defense strategic guidance. and i would agree with that. and i think that was an appropriate rebalancing. our allies in that area are critically important. allies are always important. s we sa to a more complicated 21st century where military action alone is not

going make the decisive moves that will bring about the conclusions and establish objective that we want. we're going have to work with allies. we have to continue to prepare and build up our allies. obviously china is a hugely important country. we continue to be. we have a relationship with it that is one of competition and cooperation. in some cases one of collaboration we find common interest. so yes, it has a lot to do with the fure and our role. but i don't think there's any mistake anyone should make so the united states is not going to be in a pacific and asia for a long time. our interests are clearly there. we have strong alliances there, and friends there. >> t lg the line of long-term strategic plans. as we consider these kinds of

threats we also have to consider nonstatic nuclear states that have the capacity to launch threat from other locations. have you thought about whether we need an east coast missile defense system and site. what role do you see playing in ensuring the domestic security and against the nonstatic nuclear state? >> we discuss this a bit the latest exchange with senator fisher, and others have asked this before. as you know, we are involved now in a study directed by the defense authorization act which we are undertaking now. we have not come to any conclusion as part of review of the study. we'll present to those wsv conclusions. i couldn't give you an answer now, senator, on whether i think we need an east coast or not.

>> maybe we can continue the dialogue. >> we will. >> i would like to turn to cyber . know, general desey you testified today it's important r e dget to exthpnd i beleve an attack on the reat is theaet take lightly. i appreciate you believe you the support to amplify the president's executive order. one piece of legislation i have been working on is to create and leverage a cyber guard. basically it would allow the capacity of the national guard reserve to have expertise outside the military to leverage the expertise to the benefit of our national security. is that something you have thought about? is it something that you would be willing to work with me on? i have talked to some of the service chiefs already, and i've talked to -- i have a positive letter back from general alexander on the topic.

i love your thoughts. >> the short answer is yes. i thie need to take aol force approach, w md gainvolved. i'm familiar with the direction you're moving. and anything that keith alexander tells me, i generally agree with. [laughter] >> thank you, thank you again for your service, each of you. >> thank you, senator gillibrand, senator visitor. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you to all of you for your service. with regard to the budget, the big threshold frustration a lot of us have it's two months late. largely, we were told, because of dealing with sequestration and planning about sequestration . then we get it two months late yd ignored sequestration. responsible helpful approach to igor what is alely part

of heaw, and give no guy guidance about how you dea with trn even in fy24. >> senator, thank you. my answer would be this, as i noted earlier this morning, $600 billion enterprise doesn't slam together a budget. it's a yearlong process, and before i got to department of defense, it was pulling together that budget. it was predicated on what the president's numbers were. numbers from omb. second, i noted this morning, and this is in no way defense of senasolutions would defense

department budget essentially the same as the budget we're presenting. i have recognized -- we do recognize that sequestration is the law of the land, the reality. that's why i asked essentially for the review to prepare this institution to have to deal with the law of the land as it currently is as you noted. sequestration and beyond. >> let me -- i appreciate that. let me just point out that obviously sequestration started cently, but it was enacted that possibility was inabilitied in mid 2012. and then mid 2011. and then mid 2012 congress aaffirmatively said start planning for it. show us the outline. so it' not as if it was a complete surprise a few months ago. but given that planning, when will we see your budget, if you

will, taking account of sequestration at least for fy1? >> well, i have said to senator mccain, we are working on it now. we have had to adjust -- we are justing to 2013 with the same time we are also looking at to the end of may. we can understand better what our choices are. first what our priorities are. what the obligations and responsibility of the department of defense first. will that yield an outline

budget

will have to share with congress because as i said my opening statement, congress is a partner here and to do this to accomplish it. well, i think all of us feel the sooner the better and the more specific the before. you are the experts about this than we are. so we would like that leadership and that guidance to continue that discussion in a productive way. even ignoring sequestration the president's new start funding commitment is not kept in fy14 $300 million short. as you know, these were very specific commitments related to the psftre. treatytification of tht erwere ad ocu the senate abut ty

specific discussions. it's underfunded a couple of years later. a year and a half later. how is it going to be corrected. if we take away from the experience. specific commitment are made in the discussion about ratification and a short time later, they're not kept i'm going ask the comptroller. let me address did this way. the president is committed to carrying out the law. i'm committed to carrying out the law the commitment of the president made with the treaty. as i noted here ady conversation. the safety security reliability are stockpiled the funds required to do that. the commitment to triad some of the discussion we had morning are all part of that.

and we will do that. and we'll continue to do that. now your question about $300 million. let me ask the comptroller to address it. there there savings we realized in other areas as well. i'm going do need to get with your staff and get more information. >> we can followup with that. my concern is a pretty simple one. again, real specific -- a lot of discussions about this. relate to the ratification of the treaty. then the treaty gets ratified and the funding commitments are not kept a very short time later. and has nothing do with sequestration. because the budget country account for sequestration. so, i mean, the lesson i would draw from it is don't believe anything you hear when an administration -- maybe any administration wants conformation. it evaporates three months after the ratification happens.

mr. secretary, you suggested a new brac. i think you suggested an upfront cost of $2 hadn't 4 billion. i would suggest that congress broadly doesn't have a big appetite for anything with the significant upfront cost. i'm also concerned that$2.4 billion is just seems a different planet from the last brac where gao said the first five year cost was $35 billion. so how do you jive all of that? >> well, there will be no brac without the authorization of congress, as we note. i'm going ask the comptroller to deal with the specific numbers. because we talked about it earlier. ly respond this way. when you look at the infrastructure required, as we are bringing down our troops

reducing responsibility commitment around the world that different kind of structure that we are dealing with now. funding now. preparing our forces for. that's also going require a less inventory of infrastructure. we're doing it in europe now. we will continue to do that in europe and around the world. it is my thought, i think the president's thought, that we need to look at our infrastructure here. do we have excess capacity? the gao report in the 2005 study showed we had 25% excess capacity. talk about in 2015 different in

t e sk ways, whih i think about. the way we did 2005. it will more focused and closing and the cost will be lower and the savings quicker. we're getting $12 million a year from brac. we can't afford to do not to cothis. we will be having the same conversation. we need the savings. >> senator, they have committed to provide for us for the record that $12 billion figure with the basis of is earlier they said it was from all the backgrounds not just the last one. we are still demanding that we see the data that supports that allegation.

[inaudible] the way i think they should be given the fiscal situation. and congress' lack of appetite for upfront costs. >> thank you. prior to the 2005. >> thank you, senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank the witnesses for being here. before i ask you a question, i want to mention that in half an

hour, at arlington national cemetery, lieutenant cornel don is going to be -- he was killed in korea and finally came home after fifty plus year and he served under general matt ridgeway. overwhelmed by chinese forces. the superior was killed. and he personally lead the breakout of the troops. he was killed there over -- never came home. over fifty plus years later finally came home and did dna testing. they finally figured out who the lieutenant coroner was. in the half hour his daughter and the men he served with, he is in arlington right now. congressional medal of honor winner. i want to mention his name and keep him in your prayers and

thoughts. he's an american hero. >> thank you for mentioning that, senator. >> this would be toeta indianaonal guard, we were just offramped a number of them, and defected over a national guard members. we had 570 members going to the horn of africa this morning. 446 members were going egypt in june. they are the only ones it happened to. these two units less than six weeks from being deployed were offramped and replaced by active component forces. we are willing take our share of that as we move forward on sequesio ad all of these issues. mil lose try care inof these

four days. 12 soldiers that renlisted for deployment and they were given a reenlistment bo bonus being terminated and asked to reenlist without any bonus. sixty of the soldier left the civilian employment and lost the jobs. others had their employer hire somebody else. they have gone back and the employer said, we want to take care of our soldiers but what do we do? this has been damaging to the families and to our soldiers. and so as i said, we want to -- he with willing to step up. we always have been. there are only two minimal request that the national guard made to me. that is just that the ui have 180 dais of tricare. the number two the fellows

promised a bonus get the bonus. the cost is less than a million dollars. and this is simply a matter of keeping our word. our people, as you said, are central to everything we do. they prepared for the mission. ready to go on the mission. got bumped on the mission for active duty forces. all we are asking, m ost their jobs. maf arelosing their health care, and so all we're asking is those minimal things that we would be able to do that. senator, thank you. >> let me ask the chairman of joint chief to respond to the entire framework of issues that you noted on the offramping of the guard. i'm general aware of all of those actiti but specifically about your request. i don't know .

>> in particular these folks were six weeks out had and in effect done all of the basically done the packing, getting ready, canceling leases, get family squared away. these are two minimal things that the soldier asked me to talk about. >> i don't know what our these ecific issues of -- iut will find out. let me ask them the chairman to respond here quickly to your bigger point. but i will look at your last request and if the comptroller wants to add anything to this, we will, him. we will look at it and be back do you. >> mr. chairman, as you said the decisions are challenging. active and of course the truman. some people suggested that we off ramp the the truman to make a political statement i would do

that to sailors. pamilies gone to live with their sold car, stop education courses. and this issue on the offramping. you have our commitment when we offramp either because of sequestration or the other reason we are beginning to offramp some units is the slope in afghanistan. we will always have the dimension of this first and foremost. we will go back on . >> after they said we're not going to any groups less than 120 days before. these folks in effect were caught in the middle six weeks out. if you can take a look at that, we would be extraordinarily pressuretive of it -- appreciative of it. general dempsey, in afghanistan as we drawndown i'm sure you have plans and metric in place as going through this year as

well. i want to see how we're doing on that. if we are on target, on schedule and if the traps suggestion is moving the way that has been planned. >> it is. and we have got -- what we are calling milestone 2013 coming up later in the spring, early summer, where afghan security forces will be in the lead across the country. what it gives us is two fighting seasons to allow them to exaipability in the lead and us inup. all of those are factoring what we recommend for the enduring presence.ng keep them at 352. how successful are we at

providing enablers and the two fighting season of experience. i think we're in a good place right now. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator donnelly. senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to each of you for your service to our country for all you do to keep us safe. it's deeply pmy be, my colleague, and constituents back home. my first question boths to secretary hagel and the general dempsey. the former chairman of the joint chief of staff and admiral mullen made a statement in 2011 that people on both sides of the aisle and across america have quoted many times since then. and i'd like to repeat it because it's something that i think needs to be repeated often. he said, quote, i said many times that i believe this single biggest threat to our national security is our debt. so i also belie we have every responsibility to help eliminate that threat, close quote.

do you agree with that statement today when the national debt is significantly larger thanin agree. >> i've always pointed occupy. i can't tell you how many times that quote has been read to me. thank you for reminding me again. look, economics are fiscal situation, the deficit, the budget, are all threats to the security. there's a lot of physical seen and unseen threats out there that perhaps are different even from when admiral mullen made that comment. i align myself with the economic piece of it. there are just groups out there that threaten us. ? 0. >> thank you. it is important for us, i think to remember the president's budget despite proposing significant tax increases would

still contemplate adding $12.db $2.5 trillion head by the total public. ..

>> future years covered by the budget control act. will we continue to see budget that is ignore provisions, ignore the sequester provisions? can you expect budgets like that to be sent to congress that don't reflect the law? secretary hagel? >> the fy15 budget we'll present